Portland Part 1: More Traffic and Pollution

[John Zeger]

Portland, Oregon has been cited as being at the leading edge of the "smart growth" movement away from sprawl towards creating high downtown densities. As a result of this policy traffic congestion and air pollution there has increased markedly instead of declining as "smart growth" advocates predicted. Recently, a U.S. organization created a list of the 20 most depressed cities in that country compiled by using measures such as suicides and anti-depressant prescriptions per capita and Portland made the list. As "smart growth" is the model that many members of Kelowna city council adhere to along with the city planning department, I wonder how long before Kelowna makes it on Canada's most depressed cities list. For more on Portland and "smart growth." please click on www.ncpa.org/ba/ba305/ba305.html

[bo916]

and what of those other 19 cities use the smart growth method?


do the majority of them use smart growth? or is it just that one?

if you took grade 9 math, you should know that you need more than 2 examples in order to form a pattern.

and you've only given one.

therefore you have not made a valid case, and unless you can research into these other 19 cities and find relations to the smart growth method, then you cannot state that this will cause Kelowna to become depressed.

again, i appologize if i being harsh an ruining your cases

[John Zeger]

Why don't you address your comments to the issue of "smart growth" or do you as everyone else from the movekelownaforward site always need to be insulting other people as your group has nothing intelligent to say.

[bo916]

i appologize if it sounds like i am trying to offend you. I am merely stating that your argument was not valid.


Kelowna is a tourist destination, "Fun in the sun, Big White" etc, what is portland oregon?

i really can't see kelowna becoming a depressed city no matter how large it's population becomes

[Rick Shea]

Matt Phillips says "i really can't see kelowna becoming a depressed city no matter how large it's population becomes."

Well, Matt, I'm already seeing it. In the many years I've lived in Kelowna, I've seen hookers moving into the downtown area, traffic gridlock, increasingly poor air quality, a city park that no one now goes into after dark without fearing for his or her safety, street people increasingly evident downtown, discarded needles from drug users in my driveway and on beaches, punitive restrictions on water use, longer and longer lineups for virtually any event, etc., etc., etc. Undeniably, all the signs are already there, and have become even more apparent in recent times, that we are simply headed the way of other ghettos around the world. One of the problems for most people is that the changes are almost imperceptibly incremental, so that it takes a long time to notice how bad things really have become. Anyone who was in Kelowna 25 years ago, and revisits now, will be shocked -- shocked at how many of the problems of other cities we have managed to take on, and at how we are ruining this beautiful place for the sake of a few dollars in the pockets of the already wealthy. Assuming that we can manage the sort of growth we are currently experiencing is an egocentric dream, and a nightmare for the rest of us.

[bo916]

alright, you are right, we are becoming depressed.

in order to solve this problem we need to bring people to the area, open up cafes and shops in the streets.

The lawson landing development is designed to do this. This will push out the unfavourable conditions downtown, and help bring the area back to life

[Rick Shea]

Matt, I'm glad to see that you have realized that the practices and policies to date have led to such poor conditions downtown, including some very horrendous conditions. You're part way there!

Now you propose more of the same, and even from the same people who have created those problems in the first place -- let's make all the same mistakes being made elsewhere. I for one do not believe that you can put out a fire by pouring more gasoline on it. I do believe that only a different way of thinking can help us avoid what has already happened elsewhere, and that that different way is not evident on council, or in most of the development or business community.

Certainly friendly neighborhood cafes and shops can be very well done and very pleasant, but there's something fundamentally wrong with placing them in the shadow of a monolith -- accompanied of course by a permanent loss of green space. Lawson's Landing? A more appropriate name would be Lawson's erection.

Every time we have been assured that more of something -- whether it be a building, program, or initiative -- will magically change social conditions, place a chicken in every sink, and so on, the assurances have turned out to be dead wrong. I won't hold my breath on this one either.

[bo916]

the towers are not monoliths, but they aren't small vender either.

they are however part of the solution. The towers will house a downtown population, which is something that our city lacks. with this new population, it will make the area attractive for vendors, and street cafés.

now look closely at the rendorings of the developement proposal, not at the buildings, but at the surroundings. i see street vendors, i see little shops on the marina, i see people sitting down in the grass in the new kerry park area. i see people sitting at the edge of the walkways with their feet in the water.

i know that these are only renderings, but they do show a downtown that has been brought to life.

were it only towers that were part of this project, i would not be as in favour of it as i am, but seeing all of these little extras, which will not only boost tourism, but will make that area attractive for me, and feel safe for me to bring my friends.

[Rick Shea]

"brought to life," "part of the solution," "moving forward," and so on are meaningless slogans (I know, I've used them enough myself). They are simply empty phrases that add nothing of substance to a debate or a discussion.

How does bringing even more people into the downtown area address the issues of traffic congestion, air pollution, line-ups, street people, and so on? So far, those very same approaches have not worked in Kelowna, and things have only gotten worse. Indeed, social and psychological studies throughout the world only reinforce the idea that this is an inevitable consequence.

Renderings and sketches can show pretty pictures -- the dreams of what we call city "planners" and architects. The reality is a completely different thing.

If that's all it takes to convince you, then I have a very nice picture of a bridge that you might want to buy. Sorry, I realize that that was a bit sarcastic, and I apologize for it, but I'm waiting for something of real substance here.

[bo916]

"So far, those very same approaches have not worked in Kelowna"

how can you say that when there isn't anyone living in downtown kelowna?

obviously it hasn't been going on, otherwise people would be living there.

studies have shown that cities require a strong downtown population in order to flourish, and survive.

as for street people, if the area becomes undesirable for them, then they will move out. traffic congestion will decrease if there is a downtown population because people not need to drive anywhere to get to stores and work, places they do need to get to out of the downtown core on a regular basis can be solved by taking buses, as the bus depot will be right next door. this also solves air polution caused by vehicular traffic. line-ups won't be solved by anything less than people not wanting to go to something. if a lot of people want to see something, they will go, and there will be line ups. line-ups don't make a city depressed.

the approach that kelowna had been taking was sprawling, the city is trying to move away from that approach. i don't see how you are using the current approach as if it's been the way the city has always been and is ruining it. no, the city has changed to try to fix the problem.

i don't see you offering any plans to save the city, only shutting down attempts made by the city

[Guest]

First of all, the renderings of Lawson Landing are designed to "sell" an image. Please keep that in mind.

Second, Lawsons Landing is obviously a high end development, designed for high end buyers, rich people. Rich people are most likely to own cars because they can afford them. I frankly don't see them riding the bus systems to go grocery shopping. I guarantee you that any future resident of Lawson Landing will own a car. Even the game designers of Sim City factor that in. They realize the connection between money and cars. High end neighbourhoods use cars more.

More people with more money, wouldn't that be desirable to beggers and the homeless?

[bo916]

so you play simcity as well?

i own simcity 4, and i have created cities with population of 500 000 (medium sized cities)

i do however have one problem with the game, in all of it's realism, and accuracy, i have never been able to make a city like kelowna.

i have on several occassions made as exact as possible a kelowna replica, and it has always died, particularly the downtown.

the rutland seems to thrive though.

anyways, i'm getting a bit off topic. do you think people will need to use their cars to go grocery shopping if the store is 5 minutes walking distance from their house?

[Rick Shea]

I agree with the guest who posted earlier. Only the wealthy few, and the corporations, will be able to afford to buy in the wall we are beginning to erect downtown. In addition to their own personal vehicles, let’s not forget the extra traffic and congestion created by the huge number of maintenance and service people, delivery people, tradespeople, and even visitors to these people downtown.

In a nutshell, we have the wealthy of Kelowna encouraging developers to profit from buildings that only the wealthy and the corporations will be able to afford, in the process destroying green space and walling off the mountains and the lake so that only the wealthy can afford the view with the idea that this might force the undesirables away from downtown…sounds like a recipe for alienation and social unrest if I’ve ever heard one.

Matt, I’m glad to see that you have acknowledged that this city has some huge problems, and that it needs to be saved. You might ask yourself “Saved from what?” “Why does it need saving?” “Saved for whom?” The idea that most people seem to have of saving this city means saving the current unsustainable rate of growth so that developers can continue to profit while ordinary citizens suffer the consequences.

Always keep in mind that the sprawl has been encouraged by our current council, many of whom have been in office for many years. And now we expect them to solve the problems? Sure. How many of them live in or near the downtown area? (none) They all had the opportunity to buy in the Dolphins, for example, which is within easy walking distance of the downtown core. How many did? (none) They have all had the opportunity to purchase and tastefully redevelop older homes on Fuller, Coronation, Leon, Lawrence, and many of the other older streets within walking distance of the downtown core. How many did? (none)

In terms of solutions, I firmly believe that we do not have to expect the enormous growth that the OCP predicts. I would argue, by the way, that the OCP is not really a plan in terms of managing growth, it is just a description. That growth will only occur as long as we continue to make it easy for developers to make easy profits, and at enormous cost to the ordinary citizens who are already facing the long term consequences of past growth. I do believe that we have the commercial, industrial, educational, and tourism base to provide long term careers for all of our local people, without having to bring even more people into Kelowna. In other words, I am very much in favor of the sorts of initiatives seen in many, many cities throughout the world, where there are not just careful restrictions on the amount of growth, but also on the kind of growth that is allowed. Now THAT’S managing growth.

Ironically, high rises may bring more people in close proximity to each other, but the evidence is there that this proximity actually is detrimental to a sense of community. Personal anxiety and stress levels increase, and lead to a host of serious social problems. While they may be attractive in terms of a legacy for a wealthy developer (as I said, an erection on the landscape), they are not just part of the problem, they make the problems much worse.

In closing, I’ll ask you the same questions I’ve asked in another place. Your answers will tell me whether or not you truly wish to have a discussion, and whether or not there is any point in continuing with this thread.

What exactly are the ultimate limits on growth in this city? Why should we push things to the point where we run up against those limits and not leave some sort of buffer? Why should ordinary citizens pay the long term price for lining the pockets of developers? If development does have to stop at some point in the future, why not stop it now while we still have some green space, a chance at decent air quality, and so on?